Let's not put the AFACT case in the same basket as the Libel...

Let's not put the AFACT case in the same basket as the Libel Case.

They are totally different areas of legal argument

The AFACT case was about IInet allowing copyright material to be downloaded and the judgement is being appealed on 15 grounds, four of which pertain to the Copyright Act, Section 101.

Link: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/168136,revealed-copyright-101-challenge-to-iinet-victory.aspx

It was not about the individual downloader. IMO Iinet was targeted because it is the third largest carrier in Australia, and a win for AFACT would have been a precusor to challenges to the major two companies.

The AFACT case is about the downloading of copyright material, and IInet's refusal to act on notices of alleged infringement. IInet's defence was that provision of customer details would broach Section 276 of the Telecommunications Act,

Is there a similar act that covers HC posters? I would presume so,due to the refusal of HC to release personal details in the matter under discussion.

Thermionic, I agree with you, we all are responsible for our own actions, but just consider the frivolous litigation we read about daily. We are becoming/have become a litigious society and the law is no longer our last, but our first resort, to either attack or to hide behind.

Perhaps Mr Conroy can add all the download sites to his filter .. or ... any site that uses bittorrent technology .. or ... stock forum discussion sites .. hmmm maybe I won't continue :)

Cheers .. Mandi